Jump to content

Beckmann AG

Member
  • Content Count

    1,991
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

Beckmann AG last won the day on February 20

Beckmann AG had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

606 Excellent

3 Followers

About Beckmann AG

  • Rank
    Alpine Ace/Interpreter of Maladies

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://beckmannag.com

Details

  • Location
    221b
  • Home Mountain/Resort?
    Sugarloaf/USA
  • Occupation?
    Person of interest/champion speler.
  • Current Boards in your Quiver
    ...Ain't nobody's business but the Turks...
  • Current Boots Used?
    modified Lange Plug
  • Current bindings and set-up?
    TD1 top, TD2 base, proprietary middle

Recent Profile Visitors

2,781 profile views
  1. Deeluxe is using same/similar molds, but different liners. One of the chief benefits of the heat moldable liners in contemporary boots is the ability to get closer to a correct shell fit without modification. Odds are good that unless you sized your originals by removing the liner and shell fitting, they were sized one size too large to accommodate the extra liner bulk. The implication being that if you did not shell fit your originals, used a the Zip for a better fit, then ordered the same size for your new boots, your new boots are one size too large. Hopefully not.
  2. I think he's referring to footbeds made by someone other than myself. David, I'm usually at the mountain Mondays and Tuesdays, depending on my regular work schedule.
  3. Edited that post to include links to the 'titles' in question. Apollogies for any confusion.
  4. Sounds like your shells are too large. My main shop is near Sugarloaf, my satellite shop is near UNH. Or maybe it's vice-versa.
  5. I'd have thought it reasonably clear that I was referring to the operating principles behind cars and snowboards, et al, not the oft-competing design challenges posed by market forces, regulation, materials, integration of new technology, etc. The latter being another topic entirely. From Wikipedia: "A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent." E.G., "There are numerous paradigm shifts still ongoing. See Madd 158, metal boards, Kessler sidecut/decamber, Donek Secret construction, Thirst sidecut/construction, etc." These are not paradigm shifts, but distractions from the original discussion. The focus of my earlier statements had to do with handling, how handling can be affected by attention to detail. If one understands systems, one is in a better place to affect those systems. A system in one context can be understood by studying a similar system in another context. E.g., Engine output is governed by a data map and feedback system. Your ability to ride is governed by a data map and feedback system. Including or excluding considerations from the programming will influence range and potential.
  6. Edited the above for clarity. --- If the reversed 80/20 isn't known or assumed, it should be. Warren Witherell proposed the reversed 80/20 in either ‘How the Racists Ski’, or ‘The Apathetic Skier’. Probably the latter. Though I disagree with some of his findings pertaining to canting, heel lift and knee position, I’ve found his 80/20 proposition to be fairly solid in practice, assuming one uses it as a guiding principle, rather than an absolute goal. Worth noting that sometimes the last 20% change for 80% gain isn’t a change to the equipment, it’s a change in how you choose to view a particular situation. Also worth noting that as handling is affected by ‘alignment’ on both platforms, and that both platforms can be operated with sub optimal ‘alignment’, the car analogy is not a ‘straw man’. Further, neither cars nor snowboards are complicated once you take the time to understand their workings. Persisting with that mindset is limiting. The system that regulates equilibrium is sensitive to finer increments of change. However, within the context of hardboots, it's not worth pursuing. It's that 'point of diminished return' thing, directly related to the other materials contained within the boot construct. Point being, if you recognize the limitations of the system (and the individual parts of that system), and tune to the 'best possible' resolution, you get some interesting results. If you don't care to do that, understand that you may never reach your athletic potential.
  7. "...Nay, it is; I know not "seems." --W.S.:H Lowering the rear binding angle will magnify the leveraging inputs from your rear boot. The greater magnitude has to fit through a smaller aperture with respect to time, which means your timing has to be more precise. As it it, you're late, and therefore have to cheat the remainder of the turn initiation with minor drift/skid. So the board can't 'lock in' as it does to the heel side. In the short term, soften the flex on the rear boot, and come in earlier than you think possible with that knee/foot combination.
  8. It is. And just as arbitrary as centering ones bindings on the insert pattern and assuming the job is complete. Geometry is, however, a start and point of reference. “Where you come from is gone, where you thought you were going to never was there, and where you are is no good unless you can get away from it” ― Flannery O' Connor, Wise Blood ( Also useful as a guiding principle toward how one moves over snow.) It can, and will. However, it's better when the process of riding is the process of equilibrium, rather than the two being separate goals. You can certainly operate your car with a partially deflated tire on one corner, if expediency demands, but you wouldn't do so on purpose. Why would you, should you do any differently on a snowboard?
  9. Hard to see the game when you're on the tailgate, not in the ballpark. Consider that your particular frame might require a net boot board angle of +2 front, and +8 rear. Your boots have a built in angle of 10, and the shells have only so much range before they lock up. In order to stand comfortably at rest, you'll have to set your binding toe and heel lift to resolve cuff interference, which mitigates front foot ramp, but increases rear foot ramp. Given the nature of the inclined plane, your weight distribution will always be skewed, which means you're spending significant time reacting, rather than riding. This effect being more dramatic as the incline increases. Sound familiar? A classmate skied XC at Nagano. I asked what most of the athletes were using for foot support. "Not much" he said. Realized it's not so much that top athletes become top athletes by tuning their interface, it's that their conformation doesn't require much tuning, which allows them to become top athletes. The rest of us walk a 'rougher' path. Another friend ( Shocker! I have more than one) recently did a study correlating amount of pronation to instructor certification level at a major western resort. No surprise; inverse relationship.
  10. Understandable. However, the 80/20 rule as applied to alpine skiing and snowboarding runs in reverse, whereby the first 80% change (removal of 80% equipment related obstacles) allows the athlete to discover/uncover the first 20% of their potential. That 20% gain opens the door for further athletic insight, which spurs the iterative process toward the 80% gain. One thing to remember is that a gliding board is 'live' and responds to whatever inputs you provide. Intentional or otherwise. If you don't take the time to resolve that first 80% of equipment configuration, it's a fine line between you riding the board, and the board riding you. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Consider that: The sidecut and flex pattern determine the general displacement capacity of the board with regard to time, in which case they're reflective of HP and torque. The boot (shell and liner) is the cockpit, which explains how an accomplished rider can function in a boot a little too large or too small, just as a good driver can make do from one car to the next. In each case the control surfaces might not be 'comfortable' to the rider/driver, but the locations and functions are generally familiar across platforms, so it's largely a matter of adjusting 'reach', timing and magnitude of input. Front binding offset and setback are analogous to toe and caster angle. Offset to one side, and the board will be more responsive in that direction, as though your wheels were toed-out. The board/car will tend to track toward whichever side has more 'bite'. This will be particularly noticeable on tricky/inconsistent surfaces, where the operator will be constantly acting/reacting to inconsistency. Similarly, if you have too much or too little setback, the board will either resist turning, or be hyper/nervous. If you take the time to 'tune' the analogous front end on a snowboard, you get to spend more time exploring/manipulating the handling characteristics, and less time compensating. I've driven cars that were way out of alignment, aligned professionally 'within range', and then aligned that same vehicle myself to the exact specification. That last tenth takes some time, which is why most don't go there. The most obvious and immediate gain is a reduction in driver fatigue. I concur that 'range at rest' is a valid starting point, but it's only a start. Once in motion that range can and will be affected by board backfeed, whether you realize it or not. This is one of the reasons why a softbooter might demonstrate knee flexion at rest, but cannot do the same while riding. Similarly, why the majority of hardbooters spend so much time in a flexed, muscular posture, rather than a stacked, structural posture. Lift, cant, offset, setback, stance width, boot flex etc. all effect what the board 'sees' from the rider. What the board sees determines how the board reacts, and how the board reacts determines rider movement options. Given that you can't 'step off' while in motion, the primary goal of comprehensive boot binding configuration is to reduce, as much as possible, biased/unintentional inputs. The more sensitive the chassis, the finer the resolution required.
  11. Recent project involved increasing the rear binding heel lift to the extent I had no real shin contact while 'at rest'. Meanwhile lowered the internal ramp to maintain the original 9 degree total (7 on binding, 2 on Zeppa). Interesting results. Can't speak to the Denver options, but if you get back to Aspen, Eric is a zip dealer.
  12. Earlier in this thread you questioned the discussion and implementation of offset tuning as ‘academia’, having little practical value. That’s dismissive of RJ’s quest for knowledge and my encouragement of his pursuit, and does nothing to further the conversation. Why should you feel insulted when asked to justify your position? You’re correct in that the human body is adaptable. In some contexts, (such as lifting), adaptation may be logical. Adaptation in motion, particularly on a dynamic platform, consumes both muscle and time, both of which could be better used for riding, rather than accommodating equipment maladjustment. Adaptation in thought process requires an awareness and acceptance that there's usually more going on than 'what we know'. An enduring problem in alpinesport is the largely incomplete understanding of how equipment interferes with athletic movement. Once the obstacles are removed, the actions required to ride well are incredibly simple, in stark contrast to most of what is viewed as ‘proper’ technique, that often being an ad hoc series of work-arounds. Doesn’t matter how intelligent the athlete or coach; if they can’t see the entire picture, they might as well be looking at an empty frame. I asked a year or two ago if you’d ever executed the alignment work on your race car; a question that never got answered. I asked, because there are a few similarities between the ‘alignment’ of a rider to their board, and the alignment of the wheels to the chassis. If you understand the benefit of tenths of a degree in one context, odds are that knowledge will transfer to another. If you’ve not ‘done the research’, that’s fine, but speaking as though you have isn’t helping the cause, nor is disparaging the efforts of those who pursue additional learning. You’re in a notable position to influence rider development. As such, it’s reasonable to suggest you to speak from a position of practical certainty, rather than opinion/consensus/casual observation.
  13. Not sure on the TD3 (metric?), but the thread on the TD1 (or at least a few of mine) are 1/4-28. Or they were last I checked. Also, TD3 uses a cross bolt as bail pivot, whereas the 1 and 2 use shoulder bolts. TD2 lugs should work, assuming they're available?
  14. Unspeakable things. And more suspension tuning.
×
×
  • Create New...